Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
You can’t say it much better than this editorial in the Globe:
But none of that matters to Brown, who continues to assert, without evidence, that Warren claimed minority status falsely and for career gain. Their first debate had barely begun when the senator did an uncannily lifelike impression of ignorance: “Professor Warren claimed that she was a Native American, a person of color,” Brown said. “And, as you can see,” he continued, waving a hand in her direction, “she’s not.”
Yeah, because in 2012 it’s totally cool to point at somebody and say he or she can’t be a minority because they don’t look like one. (Close observers will see a clue here as to why Brown feels no need to fire staff members for their boorish behavior).
If I’d grown up with those stories, I’d believe I had Native American heritage, too — just as my stories convince my fair child that he has Lebanese heritage. Why on earth would he think otherwise?
These editorials are coming thick and furious these days, even from not-often-Democratic-friendly columnists. Seriously, what can Brown be thinking??
Given the new ad, the doubling down on political tomahawking, expect more of the same at tonight’s debate. I fully anticipate he will: rererereattack her for “checking boxes,” attack her law work for Travelers despite the fact that victims of asbestos say she did GOOD work there, and I am betting good money on him bringing up the nonissue of the law license thing (which is just totally ridiculous, and just another conclusion in search of a premise, raised more for the optics of making Warren look shady than for any real reason of concern over her law work). Because, you see, it’s hard for us average voters to wade through the complex legal structures of state vs. federal courts, active and inactive bar memberships, what constitutes an “office” under obscure statutes, etc. Despite the many “gotcha” posts by the original conservative law blogger in question (I am not linking to him, you can find him on your own if you really want), it really is a matter of people doing some backseat lawyering without all the facts in their hands…aka rampant speculation. If you really want to dive in, this is a good place to start. And here is a crazy detailed outline as well. Warning: unless you love law stuff your eyes will start to glaze pretty quick.
Anyway, that leaves us with tonight’s debate. I believe Jack is attending, as am I, as media, so we will live-blog the affair starting, YES, this afternoon. Stay tuned!!
[powered by WordPress.]
|« Sep||Nov »|
37 queries. 0.663 seconds